Australia’s refugee problem has attracted global attention. This from the New York Times.
‘Sharon Gould’ speaks: the difference between hoax and fraud
|
I’m enjoying how this is playing out, but it sh-ts me that some of the media outlets are comparing this hoax to the frauds committed by Norma Khouri and Helen Darville/Demidenko/Dale. Do journalists not recognise the vast difference between a hoax and a fraud? It’s one thing to design a stunt as a piece of cultural criticism, but quite another to make false claims for personal gain. Both Khouri and Demidenko received money for their fraudulent acts, and neither intended, to my knowledge, to be outed. Neither designed their fraudulent claims as a culture-jamming exercise, and both duped the public instead of powerful public figures or paradigms. Windschuttle’s response raises some interesting ethical points, and I can’t pretend to be pure here. There are huge ethical questions surrounding a hoax; many unresolved to me. But Windschuttle should’ve laughed the whole thing off. His response should’ve been headed: “Don’t know much about science, but I know what I like!” But instead, he hung himself with petulance, and fixated on the more trivial aspects of the hoax. His attempts at damage control are becoming increasingly disingenuous — they actually bolster the very points raised in the hoax. And his take on my anonymity is laughable. James McAuley didn’t want to be outed either. The author of the hoax isn’t the story here. It’s telling that Windschuttle’s focus is on shooting the messenger instead of exploring the issues raised. As for media reports that some of the “science” is plausible — well! Doesn’t anyone remember H G Wells? Isn’t that the point I made in Diary of a Hoax? Why has this stuff, and the utopian claims made for it, become not just plausible but normalised and unproblematic? Why isn’t it being scrutinised by fourth estate principles? How has it happened that journalists routinely fail to distinguish between so-called “scientific” techniques (like GM or nanotechnology) and the industrial products and claims they produce? All these things are just lumped together indiscriminately as ‘science’. |
|
|
21 Comments
Well said Helen Dale! Sharon Gould should certainly come clean. Gould has done what s/he set out to do, and has covered KW with lots of egg. People have had their laugh at his expense, or tut-tutted like Edward James. The Gould one now needs to out her/himself so s/he can be properly congratulated (or castigated). As for KW, you’ve been caught out, now laugh it off, tho’ that may be too late. Then everyone needs to get on with their lives.
Hear hear Edward James.
Crikey is doing itself no favours by promoting this drivel.
How ironic that “Shane Gould” has the “sh-ts” for being called a fraud !
Having an ego while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity is…an oxymoron ?
According to science this hoax has caused pomposity levels to skyrocket, so let’s all get back to our big, fat, boring lives. I could use a sherry, actually.
I’m with Tom!
Yesterday I had my say (Copied here below).
There are a number of hoaxes that we all live by with a proper belief that the impacts on our lives are either good policy or smart ideas worth adhering to when they are unfortunately based on science abused into a form of pseudo-science. There are none courageous enough to ‘out’ these travesties. Too many with this sort of power have inadequate knowledge to instruct their intellect but are trusted to have it sorted..
From yesterday
Windschuttle isn’t accountable for quality of science. He doesn’t even pretend to be a scientist.
I am a scientist and have serious problems with professionals purporting to have scientific ability who have so little that they are guided by the wisdom that tells them my claims are ‘to good to be true’ ‘no one like me could be so far ahead of the game’ (I have been used to being way far ahead of the game since I was 14) that they call me a hoax with the comfort of that wisdom.
Even these horrible experiences contribute quality and dimension to my wisdom.
Wisdom is what Windschuttle could demonstrate and for which he could be accountable if he claims such. If babbling nonsense makes him popular he is no more accountable than the sexy teenage girl in a mini-skirt believing she is ‘hot’ or others believing she must be an easy poke.
Wisdom belongs to the wise we should stop trying to give it away to anybody that stands in-line with their hand out.
Are you Ashton Kutcher? This is easily among your top 5 non-televised stunts.
How has it happened that journalists routinely fail to distinguish between so-called “scientific” techniques (like GM or nanotechnology) and the industrial products and claims they produce? All these things are just lumped together indiscriminately as ‘science’.
In school, those that were to become journalists were off in the english and history departments, the future engineers and medicos etc in the science and maths departments. With few notable exceptions (Robin Williams and Karl Kruzelnicki for example) journalists do NOT understand science. I cringe at the frequent misuse and interchangeability of m (milli) and M (mega). I despair at the misunderstanding of the basics of thermodynamics. And don’t get me started on the misuse of surveys and statistics of doubtful provenance. Good on you , Sharon, for letting the hot air out of a pompous balloon.
Exhibit 2?
Google Australia: Katherine Wilson Overland
Result: “Voices from the edge - Books - http://www.theage.com.au
Nathan Hollier and Katherine Wilson, the joint editors of Overland, the left- wing literary and cultural magazine,”
3rd entry from top etc etc. She’s got the skills, the history on GMO, the wit and flair. She’s my candidate until I’m told otherwise.
Coffin going around Have you seen mister Brown
Coffin going around going around the town
Have you seen mister Brown
Whispering voices whispering voices
Whispering voices have you seen mister Brown
They who want to control always lose control
They who wants everything always lose everything
Are you the fat kid off Hey Dad ?
I know this has made front page in newspapers today and Crikey is orgasmic about the whole business, but …why?
Some dopey journalist tricks another dopey journalist and more dopey journalists pretend its important.
Move on, nothing has happened here.
Damn it, I just can’t sit on this, it’s like I’m busting:
Katherine Wilson (and Bernard Keane, subbing?) meet Sharon Gould? Sharon Gould meet Katherine Wilson?
Exhibit 1, 21 July 2008
“CSIRO scientist’s GM letter campaign ‘backfires’ “
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080721-CSIRO-scientist-campaign.html
Well done Sharon for showing that this self-righteous emperor has no clothes.
Credibility generally has been damaged by this tiresome effort. I did not read the Windshuttle article on Crickey.com in the first place, because the title did not interest me at all. I subscribe to Crikey.com for the insight even heads up, political or otherwise it offers me for a paltry $80 a year. I am interested in media substance and the abuse of processes indulged in by Journalist and Politicians who as a matter of habit wish to mislead the masses. It is offensive that someone Shawn, Sean Gould or who ever, comes into my bought preserve with tricks of media to waste my time and presumably mislead me. Please restrict you efforts to the realm of fiction in future. Because I for one am not playing at my desire to be being honestly and accurately informed by those whom I pay !. Credibility comming and going.
It’s not Sharon Gould at all….it’s….
OLD MAN STEVENS FROM THE ABANDONED THEME PARK!
No surprises here.
I feel like writing my guess of who Shane, err sorry Sharon Gould, is on a piece of paper and giving it to a friend to keep in their wallet. But methinks the hoaxer whoever s/he may be will declare sooner or later, especially after the silly season front page prominence in the big media has got made it’s mark. The clues are there without even looking at the bogus Quadrant article. But if I mentioned the lines of inquiry it might cramp their style. One google and I got my suspect. Anyway I might be totally off track. We shall see.
Just to add I totally agree with Hoax here. Quite right. Helen Dale case is completely different - that’s my legal view. This is an integrity test like a journo trying to walk through security with a plastic gun, or drive through the gates at the ports to see if challenged. In this case it was a self declared bogus article on an integrity test. But like in hospitals mistakes should be seen as opportunities to improve.
Edward James has a point about indulgent gotcha, only the time and effort put into this one suggests a more serious objective which I can respect. I well accept the Overland editorial reaction, live by die by publicly asserted standards. Poor form to complain, he should wear it up front. He possibly should resign.
I find myself in the curious position of sympathising with Windschuttle.
Certainly the guy needs to be taken down a peg. He has done great harm to a lot of very good people and good causes, for reasons which do not seem to me to be honourable. Hence my immediate reaction to the hoax was schadenfreude. But was this justified?
The contrast between this and the Sokal hoax could not be more extreme.
Sokal’s paper was a classic piece of obscurantism, a parody of the style of the people whose intellectual honesty he was testing.
The Sharon Gould piece is essentially a clear, well-constructed statement of a self-evident truth: that complex scientific arguments tend to be simplified and trivialised in public debate. This was not a hoax argument, it was a pretty commonplace observation. This observation was illustrated with a range of true examples. It was then extended by quoting some hoax examples, but this did not invalidate the core argument of the piece.
The main purpose of the hoax was to show that Windschuttle was less critical of ‘evidence’ in favour of his own position than he would have been of ‘evidence’ the other way. This is neither surprising nor shocking: it only says that Windschuttle is in this respect an ordinary fallible mortal. He is like me, for example.
As an editor, maybe I ought to be equally sceptical of every new piece of ‘evidence’, whether it supports of opposes my preconceptions, In practice, I have to believe that people are speaking the truth UNLESS my nose for falsehood twitches.
In the present case, despite knowing that the article was a hoax, my nose for falsehood only twitched a couple of times. By contrast, my nose for a good common-sense argument twitched several times. I would not have picked it as a hoax.
I suspect that our schadenfreude is in fact itself an example of the same phenomenon. Because we want Windschuttle to be taken down a peg, we are happy to believe that he was. But he took himself down a peg by his response.
No surprises here.
I think one of the sources cited by Margaret in her article summarised it best:
“Live by the footnote, die by the footnote”